Electronic auctions provide a convenient means to buy and sell items over a network. The bidding process helps establish a fair market value for a particular item in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, electronic auctions create a broader potential market than traditional auctions (and many buying models in general), while simplifying the bidding process for potential buyers and sellers.
There are, however, several challenges in optimizing the bidding process for an electronic auction, particularly with respect to providing information to a buyer or seller in a manner that permits either to make a quick relative valuation between competing bids. This is even more difficult if the bids do not use a standard unit of measure or value. For example, assume that a buyer is seeking a particular car in an electronic auction (e.g., downward bidding auction). Further assume that the buyer is willing to buy or lease the car based on which provides the lowest overall price. If one potential bidder (e.g., car seller) offers a bid based on a monthly leasing payment, while another offers a bid based on a straight purchase price, the buyer would be unable to compare bids to determine which is the most cost effective. If the potential bidders, however, were forced to submit bids in terms of only one dimension (e.g., leasing payment or straight purchase price), additional problems accrue. The problem of converting a bid to the preferred dimension would be time consuming and, moreover, potentially inaccurate given the various financial assumptions each potential bidder would be forced to make.
Some background information regarding traditional auctions in general and electronic auctions in particular may help illustrate the scope and impact of this type of problem. Procurement of supplies has traditionally involved high transaction costs, especially information search costs. The introduction of electronic commerce has introduced new methods of procurement that lower costs associated with procurement. Online procurement, or business-to-business electronic commerce, matches buyers and suppliers so that transactions can take place electronically. There are three models for online procurement: catalog, buyer-bidding auction, and supplier-bidding auction.
The “catalog” model of online procurement was the first to be developed. The first electronic catalogs were developed by suppliers to help customers obtain information about products and order supplies electronically. These first electronic catalogs were single-source; i.e., they only allowed customers to obtain information and products from that supplier.
Customers, however, are not typically satisfied with being “locked in” to one supplier. Rather, they wanted to be able to compare a number of competing products to be sure of getting the product features they wanted, at the best price. So suppliers with single-source electronic catalogs started to include competitors' products on their systems. An example of this is American's SABRE system, which includes offerings from competing suppliers (airlines), thereby further reducing information search costs. By offering competing products, the electronic catalog that offers competitor's products becomes an “electronic market”.
Many of these systems are biased towards the supplier offering the electronic market. Procurement costs can be further lowered with an unbiased electronic market that promotes competition.
For standard products and services, the need to have an unbiased market has been met for many industries by third party “market makers.” For example, Inventory Locator Services has compiled a database that lists all airplane parts suppliers that have a certain item in stock. Buyers dial into the database to get information on the parts they need. Here, it is a third party, Inventory Locator Service, not a supplier, creating the unbiased electronic market.
The electronic catalog model of electronic commerce involves one buyer and one supplier at a time. When many buyers compete for the right to buy from one supplier, a buyer-bidding auction model is created. A noteworthy example of the buyer-bidding auction model is that operated by PriceLine.com and described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,794,207 issued to Walker et al. In this system, potential buyers compete for airline tickets by submitting a bid for an airline ticket on the PriceLine website, and airlines can choose to accept a bid, thereby committing the buyer to buy the ticket.
The catalog and buyer-bidding auction types of electronic markets, however, are not suitable for some situations. If the required product is custom made for the buyer, it is not possible for suppliers to publish a set price in advance for a catalog market. Likewise, it is not possible for buyers to specify all of the details of the product they want to purchase in a buyer-bidding auction. Traditionally, when a company requires a custom industrial product, procurement is made by a buyer for the company who searches for a potential supplier and acquires custom-tailored price quotes from a supplier for the needed custom product. The search is slow and somewhat random because it usually relies heavily on personal relationships. The costs associated with locating vendors, comparing their products, negotiating, and paperwork become big factors in a purchase decision. The cost of switching suppliers is very large, which means that the quoted price is probably not the lowest fair price and it is hard for a new supplier to enter the market.
As an alternative, buyers use auctions to save money. The assignee of the present application developed a system wherein suppliers downwardly bid against one another to achieve the lowest market price in a supplier-bidding auction.
In a supplier-bidding auction, bid prices typically start high and move downward in reverse-auction format as suppliers interact to establish a closing price. The auction marketplace is one-sided, i.e., one buyer and many potential suppliers. Typically, the products being purchased are components or materials. “Components” typically mean fabricated tangible pieces or parts that become part of assemblies of durable products. Example components include gears, bearings, appliance shelves, or door handles. “Materials” typically mean bulk quantities of raw materials that are further transformed into product. Example materials include corn syrup or sheet steel.
Industrial buyers do not typically purchase one component at a time. Rather, they purchase whole families of similar components. At times, components are strongly related to one another. As an example, a buyer might purchase a given plastic knob in two different colors, or might purchase a nameplate in four different languages. These parts are so similar that by definition they must be purchased from the same supplier—all of the knobs are made using the same mold. These items are therefore grouped into a single lot. Suppliers in industrial auctions must provide unit price quotes for all line items in a lot.
A process for a supplier-bidding auction is described below with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2. FIG. 1 illustrates the functional elements and entities in a supplier-bidding auction, while FIG. 2 is a process diagram that identifies the tasks performed by each of the involved entities.
The supplier-bidding auction model requires that a buyer 10 define a bidding product or service. An auction coordinator 20 works with the buyer 10 to prepare for and conduct an auction and to define the potentially new supply relationships resulting from the auction.
As shown in FIG. 2, in the Initial Contact phase 102 of the auction process, the coordinator 20 contacts the buyer 10, and the buyer 10 provides data to the coordinator 20. The coordinator 20 prepares a specification 50 for each desired product or part 52. Once the product 52 is defined, potential suppliers 30 for the product are identified. The coordinator 20 and buyer 10 work together to compile this list of potential suppliers from suppliers already known to the buyer 10 as well as suppliers recommended by the coordinator 20.
The buyer 10 makes a decision regarding which potential suppliers 30 will receive invitations to the upcoming Auction. Suppliers 30 that accept Auction invitations are then sent notices regarding the upcoming Auction, as well as client software to install in preparation of participating in the Auction.
In the RFQ phase 104, the coordinator 20 works with the buyer 10 to prepare a Request for Quotation (“RFQ”) 54. The coordinator 20 collects and maintains the RFQ data provided by buyer 10, and then publishes the RFQ 54, and manages the published RFQ 54. The RFQ 54 includes specifications 50 for all of the parts 52 covered by the RFQ 54. In the RFQ 54, buyer 10 aggregates similar parts or commodity line items into job “lots.” These lots allow suppliers 30 to bid on that portion of the business for which they are best suited.
During the auction 56, bids 58 will be taken against individual lots (and their constituent parts 52) within RFQ 54. While suppliers 30 must submit actual unit prices for all line items, the competition in an Auction is based on the aggregate value bid for lots. The aggregate value bid for a lot depends upon the level and mix of line item bids and the quantity for each line item. Therefore, suppliers 30 submit bids at the line item level, but compete on the lot level.
In the Auction Administration phase 106, coordinator 20 coordinates the Auction and administers the Auction setup and preparation. The coordinator 20 sends a RFQ 54 to each participating supplier 30, and assists participating suppliers 30 with preparation for the Auction.
In the Auction phase 108, suppliers 30 submit bids 58 on the lots and monitor the progress of the bidding by the participating suppliers 30. The coordinator 20 assists, observes, and administers the Auction.
When the bidding period is over, the auction enters the Auction Results Administration phase 110. In this phase, coordinator 20 analyzes and administers the Auction results, which are viewed by buyer 10. The buyer 10 begins to conduct a final qualification of the low bidding supplier(s). The buyer 10 retains the right not to award business to a low bidding supplier 30 based on final qualification results or other business concerns.
In the ensuing Contract Administration phase 112, the coordinator 20 facilitates settlements 60 awarded by the buyer 10 to suppliers 30. Contracts 52 are then drawn up between buyer 10 and suppliers 30.
The Auction is conducted electronically between potential suppliers 30 at their respective remote sites and the coordinator 20 at its site. As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, information is conveyed between the coordinator 20 and the suppliers 30 via a communications medium such as a network service provider accessed by the participants through, for example, dial-up telephone connections using modems, or direct network connections. A computer software application is used to manage the Auction. The software application has two components: a client component 31 and a server component 23. The client component 31 operates on a computer at the site of each of the potential suppliers 30. Suppliers 30 make bids during the auction using the client component. The bids are sent via the network service provider to the site of the coordinator, where it is received by the server component 23 of the software application. The client component 31 includes software used to make a connection through telephone lines or the Internet to the server component 23. Bids 58 are submitted over this connection and updates are sent to the connected suppliers.
Bids 58 can only be submitted using the client component 31 of the application—this ensures that buyers do not circumvent the bidding process, and that only invited suppliers participate in the bidding. Typically, bidders can see their bids and bids placed by other suppliers for each lot on the client component 31. When a bidder submits a bid, that bid is sent to the server component 23 and evaluated to determine whether the bid is from an authorized bidder, and whether the bid has exceeded a pre-determined maximum acceptable price. Bids placed by a supplier are broadcasted to all connected bidders thereby enabling every participating bidder to see quickly the change in market conditions and begin planning their competitive responses.
Traditional online auctions focus on price as the sole variable upon which the online competition is based. Price is the sole bidding parameter that is provided by the bidders and hence is the sole parameter upon which a selection process is made. Relative valuations between different bid prices are quick and intuitive.
In some business-to-business situations, however, a plurality of parameters is considered in combination with the bidder's price proposal. In these situations, the buyer traditionally negotiates with each bidder independently because multi-parameter bids cannot be readily compared. As a simplified example, consider coal. Coal varies in its thermal content (i.e., BTU content) as well as in its sulfur content. Buyers would be willing to pay more, all things being equal, for higher thermal content or lower sulfur content. Sellers cannot readily change the composition of their coal. Therefore, it has traditionally been difficult to conduct an auction for coal, because not all coal is equal.
As discussed above, a similar problem exists with respect to comparing total costs associated with leasing versus buying programs. Whenever a buyer seeks to acquire use of a new means of transportation, such as a vehicle, essentially two options are made available to the buyer. The first option is a straight purchase of the vehicle, taking into consideration the purchase price, loan interest, taxes, delivery costs, maintenance programs, extended warranties and so forth. The second option is a lease contract, taking into consideration monthly leasing payments, length of lease, residual value of the vehicle at the end of the lease period, front end payments, back end or termination payments, mileage, tax shields, corporate cost of debt or cost of capital, and so forth. Accordingly, there are multiple bidding parameters associated with leasing programs and buying programs that make it difficult to compare the two in the electronic auction environment.
In view of the foregoing, it can be appreciated that a substantial need exists for a method and apparatus that solves the above-discussed problems.